Children's books of Dr. Seuss's beloved and revered, that every feature-length movie adaptation will be strongly controlled and greeted with skepticism. The same can be said with any children literature classic brought to the big screen, and for each successful attempt, like the Harry Potter series, which one stinks, like The Cat in the hat. A computer animated version of The Lorax hits theatres in March of 2012 and Seuss fans are waiting with the usual mix of excitement and trepidation. Will it meet expectations? There is reason to be optimistic.
First, let us consider what elements would make for ideal film adaptation of a Seuss book. We want, of course, as with just about any customization, our Seuss movie must be true to the source material. It has to look like it belongs with Seusss distinctive and whimsical illustrations. It is not good enough to just pay tribute to Seuss style; These films must have an authentic Seuss appearance. Main characters should not be changed drastically. No new plot points as Seuss himself would not clearly add. No modern pop/rock tunes or quips about today's innovations like the iPad and Facebook. Seuss fans will quickly rejects film as pill with the original. While the scripts that understandably cannot solely consist of skilful Seuss rhymes, is a significant dose of Seussian wordplay is required. We want our Seuss movie must be genuine Seuss.
I would like to think Hollywood gets there, but of the three great Seuss films made to date only one has achieved widespread acceptance from Seuss fans. The biggest problem with adapting these books is perhaps their short length, all less than 80 pages, with many of the pages consisting of only one or two sentences. Inevitably, new material should be added. Characters must be supplemented, where back-stories and a sensible motivation. New characters may be added. The filmmakers must tread carefully here.
Lead actors can also factor in to a large extent in a Seuss reception. If the character tone is muted, is all. It is tempting for many actors that will put their stamp on a classic character, giving the portrayal of a "freshness" and to make it their own. For example in Tim Burton's Charlie and the chocolate factory, Johnny Depp on the mystical-yet-avuncular Willy Wonka in a goofy, feminine idiot. Major actor, an odd choice.
Let us take a look at the three existing Seuss movie and how the measurement of our ideals:
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
What it really means Production design effectively captured the appearance of Seuss's Whoville in the first live-action Seuss adaptation ever made, even though all too often it felt too much like a sound stage set. The new material and Grinch back-story was acceptable.
What it got wrong: Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch was too high and over-the-top, overpowered charm Whoville and Christmas season. His interpretation of the song "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch," from 1966, Boris Karloff-told TV special paled badly in comparison. Perhaps it was our expectations too high.
Cat in the Hat (2003)
What it really means Production design was again highlighting, praised by critics.
What it got wrong: Everything else. Mike Meyers ' Cat is not the magical playful visitors from the book, but an unnecessarily crude and unlikable irritation. Kids ' family is unfortunately dysfunctional. It was too far removed from the book. We can only hope a proper remake one day because this was a bona fide fiasco, and The Cat deserves a decent big-screen treatment.
Horton Hears a who (2008)
What it really means As the first computer-animated film was Seuss appearance again on the destination. There was even a nice nod to Seusss illustrations when Horton simulating mote inhabitants. The new material felt appropriate and changes to the original seemed logical. Jim Carrey performance worked as Horton the elephant, this time, as did the Mayor of Whoville Carrells. We even had Carol Burnett as the Sour Kangaroo.
What it got wrong: Pop song over time in the end was a terribly ill thought-out. The filmmakers had not done so much right, would this end be inexcusable.
Early the next year comes the Lorax, the sad tale of a greedy industrialist is destroying the forest of truffula trees to make thneeds, as nobody needs. There is good reason to think this computer animated film will be a successful adaptation. The script is by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio, the same team that customized Horton Hears a who, and also the writers of the last 27 years of me, which was a huge success. Suesss's widow, Audrey Giesel, is on board as executive producer, as she was with Horton, and probably working to preserve the Seuss's legacy. The talented cast can boast of Ed Helms as once-ler, Danny DeVito as The Lorax, Zac Efron, Taylor Swift, Betty White and Rob Riggle. One reason for concern for some is the reported decision to show the once-ler the whole body, as opposed to merely showing his arms, which borrowed the character an air of mystery in the book. Judging from their work on Horton, but these filmmakers deserve the benefit of the doubt, and soon we will see The Lorax speaks to the trees on the big screen. Here hope his voice is well-received.
Patrick c. Dalton is a lifelong fan of Dr. Seuss. You can keep up to date will new developments of forthcoming Lorax movie on his website http://www.loraxmovienews.com/,.
No comments:
Post a Comment